Romney criticizes Solyndra failure while a Romney-backed solar company files for bankruptcy

Former Massachusetts Governor and U.S. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has attacked the Obama administration's green energy loans once again, saying that he wants to put a stop to providing loans and guarantees to private businesses in the name of clean energy.

"The government is now picking winners and losers -- or in the case of this president -- it's picking losers and the private sector does a much better job," said Romney. "I would cease and desist sending out money. The idea of individual investments being made and guarantees being made to specific companies I think is a less effective course than the government investing in basic science and technology -- and then letting private enterprise exploit the innovations."

Romney's comments came after visiting Solyndra, a California-based solar panel company that went bankrupt in 2011 after receiving loans from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

In September 2011, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million loan from the DOE in 2009. Government officials reportedly warned the administration of the viability of Solyndra, saying the company would go bankrupt in a matter of two years. The warnings were put aside in order to meet political deadlines.

Later in November 2011, Beacon Power, a company that creates flywheels to store power and increase grid efficiency by preventing blackouts, filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $43 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy in August 2010.

But the failed energy loans didn't end there. Battery maker EnerDel's Ener1 subsidiary filed for bankruptcy in January 2012 after winning an $118.5 million grant from the DOE in August 2009. Ener1 was supposed to develop batteries for electric vehicles.

Automakers have caught some heat for green energy loans as well. Tesla Motors, known for its all-electric Roadster, received $465 million in loans from the DOE. In October 2011, it was discovered that Tesla lost money on every Roadster sold. However, that same month, it was announced that Tesla's 2012 production of the new Model S had sold out and that the company would earn a profit in 2013.

Other automakers haven't been so lucky. Fisker Automotive, which received $529 million in loans from the DOE, may have to build its Atlantic Hybrid outside of the U.S. because the government froze nearly $340 million of its loan last year after the Karma plug-in hybrid was late to meet certain milestones. Fisker has since worked to find other avenues for money with no luck. However, the good news is that Fisker's Karma generated revenue of over $100 million for just 1,000 Karmas sold in the first four months of 2012.

"Alas, like Solyndra, these loans are turning out to be historic opportunities to line the pockets of major campaign fundraisers," said Romney back in October.

Interestingly, a solar company that Romney backed as Governor of Massachusetts filed for bankruptcy just days after he made his comments regarding Solyndra. As governor, Romney granted Konarka Technologies, Inc. a $1.5 million state-backed loan and announced the formation of $15 million in funds for renewable energy in the state.

I love how people think that any career politician is different from another. They all tell you what they think you want to hear, to get votes.

If it could be done right, people would just be honest, tell you what they want to do/believe, and just let you vote. If they lost, no biggy, clearly the majority just doesn't agree, go back to your normal job.

Politics suck, and I hate thinking about it, but unfortunately it is hard not to.

I wish we could do more strict term limits or something, but have people be somehow accountable for what they do while in office...so we don't run into people knowing it is their last term and running a muck. Make it so a second or third term require 75% of the vote, instead of just majority? I don't know.

Obama pretended for a long time that he was in favor of the public option. His secret deal with the industry was exposed and his party's lies, like "we support the public option" were systematically exposed—which culminated with the Dems actually whipping against the skeletal version that practically no one could even get into—so great was the industry's opposition to even the idea of a public option and so great was the party's capitulation. As for single-payer, the solution of pretty much every major industrialized nation, that one wasn't even used for show. Obama and the Dems like the theatrical pretense that they're populist. The fake nomination of Dawn Johnsen is another great example of that.

Moreover, the Republicans, who would never bite the industry's feeding hand, stopped their stonewalling of the private health mandate right around Christmas Eve (in the early morning no less) when they hoped no one would be looking. Apparently it's "conservative" to support having the government make us pay the lobbyists and CEOs who bribe government to make us pay for the lobbyists and CEOs.

quote: As governor, Romney granted Konarka Technologies, Inc. a $1.5 million state-backed loan and announced the formation of $15 million in funds for renewable energy in the state.

I take it this was the state vs federal thing you might have been referring to. And comparing Romneycare to Obamacare on its own would be an illegitimate gripe. But in the context of his comments at the time and more recently (e.g. "it would be a great model for the country" "we just need to tweak things" (paraphrased) it is a valid complaint.

Romney did in MA simply what his constituents wanted him to do. If he is elected president, that is exactly what I am afraid of. He is a moderate who will do as what both sides are asking for but not what either side needs. He'll do what the dems and reps want but not what the occupy'ers or tea partiers want. (Read: He is pro-Wall St (corporate bailouts)and pro-skidrow (personal bailouts).

Oh and PLEASE do not take this as an endorsement of Obama. He obviously is worse but they are both taking us in the wrong direction IMHO. In other words bigger gov't, bigger lobbying and more "too big to fail" companies. Well Romney *might* be slightly better than Obama. I thought Bush II would be better than Clinton with all his small gov't talk and look how that turned out. And Romney is not known for being consistent as it is.

And he not only picked losers, but he also created losers by loading purchased assets with debt, passing the borrowed money to shareholders, and letting them file for bankruptcy.

Secondly, as governor, he himself backed a green company with loans (which just failed) while standing in front of Solyndra shaking his finger. While in public office, as governor, he played a part in the market (as have many other Republicans who are crying about free market BS).

So let's stop pretending that Republicans are for a "free market," ok? Especially when they support the use of the military (a government solution) in controlling markets. These "markets" happen to be named Iraq and Afghanistan.

You want a truly free market, oppose the use military to control markets, and stop complaining when the Chinese manipulate their currency- currency manipulation is just another free market tool to gain a competitive advantage. Trust me on this, companies would manipulate currency in a heartbeat if they could (in fact, they already do in some ways), so let's not pretend Governments doing it is any different.

quote: And just like "Romneycare", comparing state actions to federal actions is an illegitimate straw man. Just another smear angle.

Why? You keep saying it's a strawman, but ultimately, both are government run solutions- they just occur at different levels of the Union. Why is the state imposing a health care laws over counties and cities any different than the federal government imposing laws over the states? Because the States are closer to constituents?? Guess what, the counties and cities are even closer.

Keep in mind, the "state rights" argument was used to keep people enslaved. The market forces in those states encouraged slavery to keep wealthy landowners wealthy.

In one example you have proof that a lesser regulated (or state regulated) market != a completely free market (as people aren't free) and that states aren't necessarily a better authority than the Federal Government.

That is unless you support the idea of second class citizens and think slavery wasn't a bad idea, and maybe that the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution got it all wrong. I'm sure a Saudi oil prince would not only love to own homes in Aspen, but also Americans (or Mexicans) to keep up the property as landscaping companies are an ongoing cost center.

You got that right.IT'S ALWAYS us aginst them no matter what happened."Can't be my side that did wrong!""Your the one that is wrong!"

I'M SO TIRED OF THE name calling and everything political!

And yes I've stop voting for that reason.

Why should I vote for these people that are on every billboard, their name on a sign in every yard (NOT MINE), and EVERY TV and radio commerical is about them for 6 months and IT'S NEVER "please vote for me I'm going to do good". Spending millions on this stupid act of getting elected to a job that pays WAY LESS. That money would feed many people and help out manyothers. Nope is always how BAD the other side is !!!!!!

Maybe it has more to do with the fact that the farming lobby is extremely powerful.

Note that this doesnt just happen in the US, but the EU too. The EU pays even more than the US does under the Common Agricultural Policy.

Would they be better off without the subsidy? Interesting questions. It might work, but it'd probably be more likely that corporations would somehow wangle a deal where its cheaper to import fruit, veg and crops from other countries than grow them locally. Agriculture largely works like this in the UK.

Its happened before with other industries too - look at the decline of manufacturing in Western economies. Would you be happy with US manufacturing companies being paid subsidies to make them more competitive with Chinese ones?

It would...If Romney wasn't so successful overall in business. As a businessman, you can't deny His success. Now for the government...their not as successful based on the results. This is why Newt and many conservatives believe less investing by the government is needed. US businesses will find away on their own if its a good project. Just look at the recent success of a private space company getting US contracts to supply the space station. If there is a true need and money to be made.... entrepreneurs will fill that void.

While I don't agree with Newts personal ideals, but I believe He would have been a great national leader for this nation.

Well, I think that energy loans are extremely important for private sector.Government should make investments in science and developing new technologies.Private businesses need energy loans and it's clear, they want to save energy and money and government should give an opportunity to do that.It happens when quite often when Romney is disagree with decisions of Obama's administration, that's why his point of view isn't really surprising.It's not so easy for some private business companies to afford all the cost connected with energy saving products, that's why they need an opportunity to take out a loan or other kind of help.

Why is it's government's responsibility to give private businesses any sort of opportunity whatsoever? There's a whole field of venture capitalists that serve that exact purpose. If a private business can't get the capital via that source, then it likely means it's a bad investment. If it's a bad investment, then government should definitely stay out of it. Current data strongly supports that.

Investing in science and research and investing in private business ventures are two entirely different beasts, and government only really belongs in one of them.

So, I was talking to a supplier today (located in the US)and was told that if Fisker doesn't launch the Atlantic then they will inevitably have to lay off many workers. Fisker not only employees engineers, accountants, mechanics, janitors, etc in their California office, they also create jobs at suppliers here in the US. If Fisker goes under - a lot of American Citizens will loose their jobs.

Even though Fisker hired a Finish manufacture to put the car together, over 50% of the parts come from NA Suppliers. Fisker has created numerous jobs that generate income tax revenue for our government.

One more thing, for those complaining about the Karma/Loan money only benefiting the 1%. Let me ask you this, how many of the 99% bought the iPhone when it was first launched? I would bet it wasn't the unemployed factory worker, waitress, mechanic or hotel clerk from down the street. Someone has to pay for the new technology......

Its not that they are making it its that they are making it with tax payer dollars in another country. They are making it with money that they essentially stole from people in the form of a tax and are handing it to a Finnish company to build a car not for the masses that's affordable but for those that can afford a $100k car electric car. Also they are pushing a communist style agenda when it comes to these environmentalist programs. Hell not even the chinese communists decide what lightbulb you can use! So if you lose your job Im sorry for you but you'll find another job but the tax payers wont get their millions back.

The difference is the IPhone didn't get government money to keep people employed...If a product can't stand on its own, then that company should go under, and nobody should be propping them up just so someone doesn't lose a job. I love green technology, but it not ready for prime time and ignorant people like Obama keep trying to shove it down our throats. When green technology reaches efficiency in line, or close, to fossil fuels you will have no problem marketing that to the public. Until that time, schools and universities, along with companies that can afford to do R&D, should keep working on these types of technologies and when they reach the appropriate level of efficiency and use they will be adopted. The government shouldn't even be involved in this equation except to impose reasonable standards based on the actual level of the technology.

People out there should check the Solyndra Loan history. Bush started the deal in 2007. It was a multi-year loan guarantee. Early backers were the Walton's of Walmart fame. Uber Republicans. Bush in early January 2009 tried to get the loan completed as a whole before Obama's inauguration. The issue that Bush ran in to was he was then at that stage dealing with non-political civil servants and they'd not rush it through. He could do no arm twisting.

Now everybody wants to dump it all in Obama's lap when Bush started the whole deal.

quote: the government investing in basic science and technology -- and then letting private enterprise exploit the innovations.

I've always had a problem with this idea. It just feels like we, as tax payers, have to pay for things twice. We fund the basic research and R&D that a private company then gets to make profit from, which naturally comes from us again as consumers. I really like that the government funds scientific and technological research as it leads to many great innovations. But I do feel that there should be some mechanism for taxpayers to get back their investment in some way before they start paying for it in the private sector.

The nuclear industry is getting massive subsidies by the feds. Would Romney kill that funding? I suspect not. If there's one thing Republicans love more than weapons (which is because they're all shaped like phalluses) is nuclear power. The dirtier the better.

He won't get elected, so it really doesn't matter. I am an independent, because people who belong to a political party are blinded lemmings, but the fact is people just don't hate Obama enough to vote him out. And in this country, we elect the person we hate the least, and this time around, it is going to be Obama again.

quote: ...because people who belong to a political party are blinded lemmings...

Yup. George Washington could see it coming, which is why he didn't want parties involved in government. Political parties should be outlawed...then candidates would have to be evaluated by their positions on topics of importance - the dipsh1ts of this world couldn't just vote donkey or elephant.

quote: Perhaps you shouldn't pigeonhole people Brandon? There are quite a few of us who could care less what "letter" comes after the name of a person as long as they're in-line with us on important issues.

I've stated a million times I'm not a "Republican", but rather a Conservative. And that's how I vote. I don't think Brandon meant any malice, I know he's teasing. But it gets old sometimes.

This was the first time I had watched the Republican Primary for President and while the general theme of fiscal conservatism was present, the candidate's views were mostly quite different especially when it came to taxes and social conservatism. When you had Romney, Santorm, and Paul left in the race you could really see the three different sides of the republican party. Romney was a fiscal conservative and socially moderate. Santorm was very socially conservative, and Paul was a Libertarian. The party line is not as clear cut as you think it is. There are very clear cut differences, just as Obama and Clinton are pretty far apart.

The choice this time around is overt Socialism/Communism(community organizer, organized labor, social justice) With President Obama or Free market western capitalism (self made man, wealth creator, capitalist) with Governor Romney. The choice is clear.

Historically, not having any party structure has been a hindrance to getting things done. A party platform makes it easier to get blocks of legislators together on a topic and on a bill, rather than working with 300 individuals and 300 individual bargaining positions. It greases the wheels.

The current system can work. Leftists have pretty much completed the process of assassinating moderate Democrats like Lieberman. Big-government Republicans have more recently been facing the wrath of small-government conservatives and libertarians, broadly grouped to some degree as the tea party element. There's a reason we have political parties, and there is a reason we have primaries to select those parties candidates.

Considering turnout for primary elections is usually incredibly dismal (I've walked in to polling places and been the only voter in sight many times), I question the right of very many Americans to bitch about the party system not working. Marxists and the Tea Party proves it absolutely can, if people give half a crap.

I completely agree. I'm only 33 and this was my first time in a primary and the difference in republican primary candidates was pretty striking. Of course a progressive looking in from outside sees only crazed social conservatives waving a cross or coldhearted fiscal conservatives taking away their handouts to those in "need" but the republican party contains a lot of variation and I think we did come out of the process with the best compromise. I'd personally rather drop all social conservatives from the republican party but without their vote we'd lose and we'd all be forced to pay unconstitutional mandatory union dues to boss's we had no control over because voting is done without secret ballot. Any idiot who thinks a public vote is a good idea is a total idiot on either side of the fence.

quote: Voting for Obama again because you don't like Romney would be like shooting off your balls to spite your dick.

People in America tend to forget you don't have to vote for a Republican or Democrat. There ARE other people running and even if there weren't it would be better to write in a politician you support (e.g. Ron Paul) versus a candidate you feel is largely immoral and corrupt.

The problem is that people feel compelled to vote for candidates they know support loads of pork (as both parties typically put up candidates promising their own special brands of pork), or are so cynical and apathetic that they just don't vote at all.

It's true one person voting third party or write-in won't change that, but if EVERYONE who voted did that, and if more people voted, perhaps there would finally be some positive change in the federal government.

Be part of that change, or let the country slip further into the mire, I say.

(To be fair, if you truly think either candidate is great, go for it and vote for them. I won't lie -- I don't.)

No this is not really true Jason. It is a proven fact that when you vote for someone outside the 2 major parties, you are essentially giving votes to one of the members of those parties. It really has always been and continues to be a 2 party system, with a few randoms coming along the way to stir up the pot. Sadly voting for an indepedent is almost the same as not voting.

quote: No this is not really true Jason. It is a proven fact that when you vote for someone outside the 2 major parties, you are essentially giving votes to one of the members of those parties.

No, that is not a FACT, it is a general historic precedent. There is a difference.

But even in a historical sense as your backpedaling later statements indicate, that is not wholly true.

I find your comment very sad. It is thinking like yours that prevents true progress and constrains America to its two ruling parties, a system which leaves Americans with NO SOLUTION if both parties are misbehaving.

Vote for a candidate you feel will positively change the U.S.

If you're given a choice between being stabbed in the heart or being stabbed in the arm, it's true you would probably choose being stabbed in the arm. But what people don't realize is that they don't HAVE to vote for a candidate who stabs you at all (in a metaphorical sense).

The republican party has primaries and debates by primary candidates. This election the Republican primaries had some 9 candidates when it started? Including Ron Paul.

Voting for a write in or third party candidate is a complete waste of a vote. Take for example traditional third parties like the Losertarian or the Constipation parties. The "profound statement", of voting for them is a complete waste for candidates that are lucky to get .001% of votes in federal elections.What it does do is it typically get the opponent elected. However I like "small l" libertarians. Like some of Ron Paul'd views. Some. But the big L's are charlatan egomanics with delusions of grandeur.

No legitimate candidate will be perfect. But voting against the party that is DOING the worst to the country is better than squandering your vote on a ridiculous, hopeless, cause.

quote: Voting for a write in or third party candidate is a complete waste of a vote.

Tell that to lisa murkowski of alaska. She was put into office cause her daddy appointed her when stevens I think his name was got arrested then when she ran again she got tossed off the ballot and staged a write in campaign and won. She had to break the law to do it but she won (state constitution says your name has to be spelled right when they write in and no one can spell murkowski with frozen alaskan fingers).

With the American system of voting, the "game" always becomes a two party one and any vote outside the two "top dogs" is essentially not a vote for that third person as much as a vote against whichever of the two you might have voted for if there was only two choices. And lets say one of the big two really does f-up and looses power a third will gain power like you wish and for awhile we will have three parties but eventually one will die or be subsumed and we will be back to two again.

If you want more than two parties you must first change the voting system. Ranked voting (ordering the contenders by first pick, second pick, etc.) or affinity/scoring voting (rateing each one on a scale) is far better. It means a party could run more than one candidiate for the same office and lesser parties would get more "votes" because there is no limit on how many people you can rank. Now the down side to the ranking systems is figuring out the winner can be a little convoulted. (See the Austrailian voting system.) Or you may end up with a candidate that the fewest people hate.

They didn't forget, Jason. Those candidates you are referring to are grossly overspent and the media glazes over any candidate who's party doesn't in some way contribute to them. Look at Ron Paul for proof, and he's supposedly part of a party

quote: It's true one person voting third party or write-in won't change that, but if EVERYONE who voted did that, and if more people voted, perhaps there would finally be some positive change in the federal government.

It's too late for that. Jason you don't get it. Too many people LIKE the way things are going. They like the idea of a huge centralized Government taking care of their every concern. They like the idea of abdicating responsibility of any and all problems to those in Washington to fix.

quote: It's too late for that. Jason you don't get it. Too many people LIKE the way things are going. They like the idea of a huge centralized Government taking care of their every concern. They like the idea of abdicating responsibility of any and all problems to those in Washington to fix.

Well human nature is that problems have to get worse before people start caring enough to fix them. So I begrudgingly join you in your short term pessimism, while being more optimistic with respect to mankind and America's more distant future.

Yep. History says the end result of Western-style socialism or Marxism is Greece, Italy, Portugal, France. America bucked a lot of trends for a long time thanks to its pioneering, individualist, personal-responsibility and free enterprising culture, but that culture scarcely exists among the younger voters, so it's hard to say if we get faced with the option of reform or economic ruin if we'd choose reform.

And when Latin America hit problems in the 80s, Asia in the 90s, and Europes periphery in the housing bust, they had a relatively strong global market to draw investment from and to export to that softened the blow and helped reforms show quick results. If America hits the skids Greece-style, it's a fair question if the entire world could bail us out even if it wanted to.

I actually like Obama. Not everything about him, but I sure don't think he is the socialist pig that right wing news is trying to convince everyone of. He certainly seems to be a more grounded person that Romney though. More of a people person. I also don't care that Romney is mormon (I would only firmly and soley discount someone based on religion if they were a scientologist). However his background does let on to show he is pretty religious, a quality that I don't really like in the leaders of the free world. They don't need to be godless atheists like myself, but they at least need to keep religious feelings out of national decision making.

Just because people claim crazy things or do crazy things in religion does not mean all religious people are crazy or that the things they do are really endorsed by their religion of choice.

Let's pretend for argument's sake that Joseph Stalin was a big fan of George Washington, in addition to be a tyrannical lunatic.

Stalin could have claim everything he did was endorsed by George Washington, and that wouldn't mean everyone who respects George Washington is stupid or evil. It also wouldn't mean that that George Washington or the keepers of his legacy would respect what he was doing.

Doesn't the guy who invented the internet get to say whatever he wants?

Your Stalin and Washington argument is hard to relate to this, because those people actually existed, and their actions (if not their thoughts) are documented. As far as god goes, we have no real knowledge of god existing, and if god did exist, we have no knowledge of its toughts or actions.

My point is if the leaders of the world are doing things because of what amounts to voices other than their own in their heads, well we usually lock people up for that and shock their temples... so yeah...

No they voted for Iraq because they were lied to, just like the UN security council was lied to. Remember all those posters of satellite images of chemical weapons plants and mobile death labs that we used to convince everyone they were making nukes and bio weapons. They we invaded, and found none of that. Bush wanted Iraq to show his daddy he could finish what he could not back in 91. That is pretty accepted now.

People try to make the same link with IQ and liberalism, and educational levels and liberalism.

Except Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal are all full of and run by these higher-IQ liberals, and yet are train wrecks flirting with economic oblivion. Meanwhile, that ol dunce Scott Walker boosted Wisconsin's credit rating and balanced its budget while seeing overall job growth. The Occupy movement is made up primarily of college students, supposedly a smart crowd, no? And yet they preach Marxism more often then not, whether they know it or not. Those supposedly smart folks believe in ideas and an ideology that has failed in almost every place in which its been tried.

Time to accept that people that might be smart in certain ways can be absolutely retarded in areas they don't care to really understand (in this case, economics and business), or when they decide to turn off those brains and think with their big bleeding hearts.

It makes a great deal of sense that those who have a higher religious faith would rank lower in "intelligence": after all, if you have all of the answers given to you by myth, why would you ever research anything independently?

And lest we forget, the most successful nations on the planet (as judged by quality of life, life expectancy, education levels, infant mortality, quality of education etc. -- you know, the important things) are the decidedly socialist Scandinavian countries.

Really? You have a verifiable recording of this command? Because as far as I know there's not a single iota of concrete proof that there is a god at all.

And as for Scandinavian financials, let's look at Norway. In 2011, all spending was up, GDP was up, while unemployment was at 3.3%. They have over a half a trillion dollars in a sustainability fund.

Hardly a picture of a nation in trouble.

Look, I know you've been told all of your life that 'merica is the greatest nation on the planet. As someone who's lived in the USA (NYC), Canada (Toronto and Edmonton), Germany (Dresden) and Japan (Tokyo) as well as visited many many other nations, let me assure you that it's not the case. The nations in the best social and economic shape by far are the Scandinavian socialist countries.

Though they are having their precariously balanced fiscal system tested with immigration. The newer immigrants are not assimilating into society and have become a large drag on the system. They take but they are not contributing. That is when thing fall apart.

Denmark found their generous unemployment plan didn't work so well. Once people were down to about 6 months they found jobs. So they started decreasing it from 5 years, not sure where they are with it.

quote: And as for Scandinavian financials, let's look at Norway. In 2011, all spending was up, GDP was up, while unemployment was at 3.3%. They have over a half a trillion dollars in a sustainability fund.

500B, the president blew more than that on Solyndra.

The Nordic countries are small microeconomic systems. It doesn't seem to translate to larger countries. People; their emotions and irrational behavior tend to get in the way.

quote: Really? You have a verifiable recording of this command? Because as far as I know there's not a single iota of concrete proof that there is a god at all.

As usual, faith and concrete evidence are two different things.

I have lived in Europe and traveled through 20 something countries and I am always happy to come back. Why? Once I started looking at their laws and limitations on various rights. The State Dept has some great info. Unlike many places with their oppression of political correctness I really do want to know what people really have on their minds. Fewer surprises. US perfect, by no means. Just so much of the world wants to gag every thought that hasn't been approved by some board.

quote: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

quote: I actually like Obama. I also don't care that Romney is mormon (I would only firmly and soley discount someone based on religion if they were a scientologist). However his background does let on to show he is pretty religious, a quality that I don't really like in the leaders of the free world.

“I’m a Christian by choice. My family, frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me, and I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.

“But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people, and do our best to help them find their own grace. That’s what I strive to do, that’s what I pray to do every day.’’ Yet he said that as president, he also “deeply believes that part of the bedrock strength of this country is that it embraces people of many faiths and of no faith."

Hey who am I to know? The guy sat in that Chicago church for 20+ years every Sunday. He eloquently proclaims his faith. And he attends the same White House chapel that Bush did every week.

This would be enough evidence for anyone on the Left to label a Republican a "christian" no matter what. So I'm using it to expose the hypocrisy. If you can't vote for Romney because he's christian, oh well, I guess you can't vote for Obama either.

My first order would be to pass a federal law requiring businesses to have employees to take video game breaks every 4 hours. That would be directly after I built the 6 mile wide pirana filled canal to seperate mexico and texas, and right before I told Iran, Syria, and North Korea that I am going to take their toys away and put them in time out if they don't start behaving.

The fact that you put a lable on yourself PUTS you in a political party.I WILL NOT PICK any label.I do not vote!PEROID!And if you say why, that's not right. WHEN OUR POLITCIAL system is fixed, and MONEY CAN'T buy votes, and politicans don't lie about everything, and they don't spend time in office trying to keep it for as long as they can, then I MIGHT vote again!

It's amazing to me how many people eat up the class warfare line. They would rather be envious of those who's families have worked hard to succeed, and our country was built with hard work. Now a group of people want you to hate those who are success stories, and they want you on the government dole because then you are a basic serf.

The whole "Class warfare" catch phrase is a defense mechanism mean to cloud the issues. It's not "class warfare". It's about the status quo and how the system differentiates between the "classes" and how it perpetuates and deepens the divides between the classes through unfair tax policies. It has nothing to do with who's rich or poor. It has to do with how you earn your money and how much of it you earn. The rich feel it is class warfare, but in reality, it's just a movement to level the playing field so that people who earn the majority of their living through dividends pay more than simply %15 of it in taxes.

Currently, the person working for a living, earning a paycheck pays a higher percentage in taxes than the person who earns their living collecting dividend checks. Now collecting dividend checks isn't a quick ticket to Boardwalk or Park Place; lots of middle and lower class people work for a living and earn dividend checks. However, I don't feel that the people who earn money from dividend checks deserve to receive that money at a greatly reduced tax rate. Equivalent to someone working for a living and earning about $25,000 / yr no matter how much money they earn in dividends.

I say make all income equal. For me, income is income, whether you sit back in your multi-million dollar home smoking stogies and drinking whiskey or plow through pints at the local pub because your job sucks. Tax income equally is what I say. Don't allow one method of earning income to be less painful.

quote: how it perpetuates and deepens the divides between the classes through unfair tax policies.

So to you it is fair that 1% of people pay 30% of all income taxes, and the top 10% pay 50% of all income taxes while 50% pay absolutely nothing or get thousands back? That leaves 40% paying the other 50% of income taxes.

quote: Currently, the person working for a living, earning a paycheck pays a higher percentage in taxes than the person who earns their living collecting dividend checks.

Raising the capital gains tax only reduces revenues because then people move their money out of the stock market. It also punishes the small guy, who's trying to make a little extra money buying and selling stock, more than it does the rich. But hey let's just ignore the things that history can teach us.

I'm believe the only reason FIT is being modded down is because he is regurgitating talking points; however, the price of stocks is determined by the value (dividends) expected AFTER taxes. If the tax rate goes up, why would you pay the same price to get less money? It doesn't make sense.

While the market can be irrational in the short term, it will eventually, revert to an appropriate price based on the after tax earnings the investor can be considered entitled too.

Increasing taxes stops movement of capital. Encourages under the table cash economy. Less money to be taxed. Less money available for investment. Look at the crazy "fixes" congress did after the stock market fall in 29. They pushed money off to the sidelines, perpetuated a dismal economy, along with huge government spending programs, and making gold illegal to own. Revenues go down regardless of the rate. It floats around 18-19% of GDP. High taxes--> less growth--> less money to be taxed--> lower revenues.

When people feel taxes are unfair they will spend more money to hide it than let the government pick their pockets. After all, money you have earned is yours, not the governments.

quote: So to you it is fair that 1% of people pay 30% of all income taxes

That's a false argument and tired, simple-thinking crap to boot. Total paid has nothing to do with per capita percent paid.

Let's assume a group of 100 people. One person earns a cool 10 million. The other 99 earn 50 grand each. Now comes tax time. Would it be fair for the 10M earner (the 1%) to pay 67% of all the taxes? That's what it would be if everyone in the group paid 20% of their income in taxes.

quote: So to you it is fair that 1% of people pay 30% of all income taxes, and the top 10% pay 50% of all income taxes while 50% pay absolutely nothing or get thousands back? That leaves 40% paying the other 50% of income taxes.

Why is it fairer that richer people pay less tax? It makes their good situation better, and the bad situation for poorer people worse. Again - how is this fair?

How is the situation for poor worse because the top 1% of the wealthy pay 30% of all income taxes? The poor already pay absolutely no taxes and even get money back from the system. Someone who is truly poor already gets food stamps, housing, Medicaid, and possibly a free cell phone. And I'm sure there's more programs I can't even think of.

IS their situation worse because we're not giving them even more crap for free? Should we let them ram a stick up the wealthy's butt once a week as well?

There are many more poor people than rich people. An extra $50 a month makes a big, big difference in the life of a poor person, and as poor people dont have overseas bank accounts that they dont have to pay tax on, they are more likely to circulate the money in the economy.

Programs for the poor are beneficial - it improves life expectancy, education, and employment prospects, while insulating them from crime - all of which incurs further savings down the line.

Providing them with no assistance whatsoever just means they are more likely to be a drain on the economy for the rest of their lives - they are less likely to have a good education, get a decent job, which means they dont earn much, which means their tax receipts are low. See where this is going?

Of course, this is a generalisation, but if welfare had no benefit to society then it would have been scrapped long ago. There will always be people who abuse the system. Long term unemployed who blow the governments generosity on gambling, drugs, whatever. Kind of like rich dudes who squirrel their billions away overseas, dive through legal loopholes to avoid paying tax, set up Ponzi schemes. Guess which is more destructive?

Top 10% for 2011, still over 60%. (Small differences in what is the top 10% between both sites as well). What I would consider middle class is a little under 30%. Bottom is 10%. I am betting though that these numbers are before deductions and credits though. Because someone who only makes $13,000 a year does not pay any income taxes. They get it all back. The only thing they don't get back is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Of course to you they probably shouldn't have to pay into either of those either.

And the only reason why when you look at total percentage of income paid in tax that the rich appear to pay less is because large portions of their income aren't taxed on Social Security. Why should they be? They aren't going to get any more than someone who makes the cap. And hell they don't even really benefit from it since they don't need it. But I'm sure to you they should pay the tax on every cent.

About the only area where I might say its unfair is that if you make all your money from capital gains, you don't pay into Social Security since capital gains and dividends aren't taxed for Social Security. So you could have a valid argument for a change where if you earn over 50% or so of your income from capital gains/dividends, you pay Social Security tax on that income up to the $104kish cap. That still isn't going to drastically alter the numbers though for the very wealthy in terms of percentage of total income paid in taxes.

quote: There are many more poor people than rich people. An extra $50 a month makes a big, big difference in the life of a poor person, and as poor people dont have overseas bank accounts that they dont have to pay tax on, they are more likely to circulate the money in the economy.

Many of todays "poor" in America have high def TVs and cable, iPhones, designer clothes, etc. Yes there are those who are truly poor. But there are far more who are "poor".

quote: Long term unemployed who blow the governments generosity on gambling, drugs, whatever. Kind of like rich dudes who squirrel their billions away overseas, dive through legal loopholes to avoid paying tax, set up Ponzi schemes. Guess which is more destructive?

There is no comparison to any of those things. The first category are abusing the system and vote to keep abusing the system.

The second is broken into two categories and neither are comparable. Rich billionaires who blow money and dive through loopholes a) aren't breaking the law and b) its their damn money. They didn't take it from someone else who earned it. They earned it. You might not like how they earned it. But they did earn it. And the vast majority of them didn't create the loopholes, they just use them the same as you would in their situation.

Now politicians who create loopholes so they can abuse them, that is wrong and they should be at best voted out and at worst in jail. And someone who sets up a ponzi scheme though is breaking the law and deserves to go to jail.

I'll admit that I'm a little out of my depth when it comes to US tax practices. I tend to use information I have on the UK and Australia and extrapolate from there. Its not a good position to argue from when applied to the US so apologies for that.

quote: The second is broken into two categories and neither are comparable. Rich billionaires who blow money and dive through loopholes a) aren't breaking the law and b) its their damn money.

But the law isn't immutable. It is fallible. It can be changed to favour certain portions of society. Loopholes that allow people to cheat their way out of taxes should be closed. Again to bring up the UK, theyre closing down on this in a big way.

quote: So to you it is fair that 1% of people pay 30% of all income taxes, and the top 10% pay 50% of all income taxes while 50% pay absolutely nothing or get thousands back? That leaves 40% paying the other 50% of income taxes.

This is fine, the combined net worth of the bottom 60% is less than $2 trillion dollars according to the levy institute.

That means even if we took everything owned by the bottom 60% of Americans as a tax this year, they combined would still have paid less in total taxes than the top 5%.

your math adds up to 51% of the people paying 130% of the taxes. That's amazing.

quote: Raising the capital gains tax only reduces revenues because then people move their money out of the stock market. It also punishes the small guy, who's trying to make a little extra money buying and selling stock, more than it does the rich.

I guess it can't be class warfare then. Clearly this effects the little guy more than the multimillionaire investor.

quote: But hey let's just ignore the things that history can teach us.

What history are you referring to? Do tell.

quote: Raising the capital gains tax only reduces revenues because then people move their money out of the stock market.

That's just a blatant myth. Where else will these investors put there money then? In small business, how's that bad? Leaving it in the bank is just dumb. I guess they could stuff their mattresses with it.

quote: Tax income equally is what I say. Don't allow one method of earning income to be less painful.

Economic growth comes partly from investment. Investment is financed by savings. Savings is transferred from savers to those in need of capital (business) by way of the stock market, bond market, private equity and bank loans. Economists have, asides from a few that dabble in politics like Krugman, long known that the optimal scenario for an overall economy is not treat income from savings as normal income, but rather to tax it as little as possible to thus try to encourage as much savings as possible, and therefore to fuel as much investment as possible -- at least thats the case for most of the world. Some parts of the world, like China, save too much -- but thats why the Chinese also hold down savings account interest rates, to try to boost consumption (and prop up state-owned banks).

But, I know, that doesn't sound as 'FAIR', and a lot of people rather have a weaker economy and have what they personally consider 'fair'.

Keep in mind too that a lot of income for the rich comes from such sources because the government tried to squeeze them to death in the past with much higher income tax rates than what currently exists, so they shifted their compensation packages from straight cash to stock options. In general in economics, if you punish an activity, you're going to get less of it; part of the idea behind the Laffer curve. Punish investment as you suggest, and investment will flow elsewhere.

Related note: Princeton University Econometrics department surveyed the 500 largest European and Asian companies about the FairTax. If adopted, 400 would make the US their new destination for new manufacturing, and the other 100? They'd close up shop over there and move their HQ here.

But the FairTax wouldn't stick it to the rich as much as the left would like, so it'll never happen.

The problem with that idea (that Ive been trying to get more people to realize) is that when the government controls the price of your food and gas and any thing you buy they can control how much you buy by raising or lowing the tax rate on certain items. And I dont know about you but I dont want the government deciding how much my tv and food costs.

The harder it is to hide taxes, i.e. flat tax, sales tax in leiu of income taxes, the less control congress has. Anytime the rates change everyone knows it immediately and they let it be known.

Right now who knows how many times are you being taxed on your food? The company, transportation of food, all the people involved in the process. You don't know. There are so many hidden taxes and loop holes they already pick favorites. If you have to pay more do you even know?

The government already controls the price of food and gas, only identifying all of it is impossible for the average person. One simple tax for all and any change can't be hidden.

Nevermind the fact that if we ever got to a sensible tax system like that, we'd have had to do so much Government "cleaning house" that more than likely their power over food and oil prices would be quite small.

I agree. While I see some argument to taxing savings twice and we can admit we would like people in America to save more, economic activity is economic activity. Saving should be rewarded, but then not being kicked out of your house or paying interest on credit cards should be sufficient.

Let's make it ~15% for all income earned in the U.S. above poverty line and a fixed amount (let's say $~500 for those over 18 so everyone pays. If separating the two incomes is still desired, tax the income stream which is greatest, but I would lean to one rate for all with the lowest possible tax rate.

I would also reform the corporate tax to allow dividends to be deducted as an expense to eliminate the tax preference to raise funds by issuing debt.

We are captive “Consumer Prey” in the USA. Republicans want to remove ALL regulation on all businesses. Let them do what they want, meanwhile they stake us to the ground. Look at what they did with big Pharma. To protect the pharmaceutical companies Republicans, made it illegal for us buy cheaper from Canada. We’re held captive we are "Staked Prey"

Where do the Republicans get off pointing to this? Didn’t the last administration pick winners and losers in the financial crisis, Wall Street and the big banks being the winners and consumers being the losers? The Republicans pick winners, the rich, and losers, you and me and everybody else that doesn’t have a billion in the bank.

It just proves that the Republicans accuses anybody of doing anything the Rebublicans are doing it first and worse.

Meanwhile the toothless moron mouth-breathers watch Fox and think the hate spew has some basis in reality.

The obama administration gave 1.6 BILLION dollars to brightsouce energy and 16billion dollars overall to green energy subsidies. If you cant make green energy affordable and functional with 16billion dollars then its not going to work. These subsidies (and all federal subsidies) must be stopped if we are to come back from the brink of bankruptcy.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis